SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: paul_philp who wrote (74341)2/15/2003 9:38:26 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
The idea of Bush needing to be nice is simply a desire to maintain the status quo.

Bingo.



To: paul_philp who wrote (74341)2/15/2003 9:56:31 PM
From: JohnM  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
The problem Bush created is with public opinion in Europe, perhaps even throughout the globe. He has convinced huge chunks of the global public that the Bush is more to be feared than Saddam. That was no easy feat, given the great range of sympathy sent our way right after 9-11.

In the wake of that public opinion, the Bush folk can now, apparently, only muster, at least as of Friday, four votes in the UNSC. It's not just France and Germany; it's the failure of the Bush admin to convince the voting populations of the world democracies of the credibility of their invasion plans.

The invasion lacks public support in Spain and Italy, in addition to the obvious opposition in Germany and France. And, it goes without saying, just how high the levels of opposition are in Britain.

The status quo ended on 9-11.

That's a nice line, Paul. But the problem with it continues to be the convincing connection between a war against Iraq and 9-11. We have no need to type against one another on that issue. It's clear we are irrevocably at different places. But it should also be clear that the Bush administration has failed to make that connection to global public opinion.

The Bush folk have, as well, failed to convince that opinion on the other arguments they make, some of which are much more convincing. But they've simply failed in the critical political work. Blaming the French or blaming someone else represents a listening failure.

I'm afraid the Bush folk can't listen; we'll invade with this level of world wide opposition; and, as Richard Butler said on CNN this afternoon, the world troubles will only be beginning.



To: paul_philp who wrote (74341)2/15/2003 10:03:40 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Tom Friedman talks sternly to China. You'll like this column, paul:

Peking Duct Tape
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

After a recent U.N. session on the Iraq crisis, I asked a Bush aide how China was behaving. "The Chinese?" the official said. "They don't think they have a dog in this fight."

That certainly is how China is behaving — as if this whole issue were for America to resolve. That is a deeply mistaken view, and it shows how little China (not to mention France and Russia) understands about the new world order. If I were explaining it to China's leaders, here's what I would say:

Friends, with every great world war has come a new security system. World War I gave birth to the League of Nations and an attempt to recreate a balance of power in Europe, which proved unstable. World War II gave birth to the U.N., NATO, the I.M.F. and the bipolar American-Soviet power structure, which proved to be quite stable until the end of the cold war. Now, 9/11 has set off World War III, and it, too, is defining a new international order.

The new world system is also bipolar, but instead of being divided between East and West, it is divided between the World of Order and the World of Disorder. The World of Order is built on four pillars: the U.S., E.U.-Russia, India and China, along with all the smaller powers around them. The World of Disorder comprises failed states (such as Liberia), rogue states (Iraq and North Korea), messy states — states that are too big to fail but too messy to work (Pakistan, Colombia, Indonesia, many Arab and African states) — and finally the terrorist and mafia networks that feed off the World of Disorder.

There has always been a World of Disorder, but what makes it more dangerous today is that in a networked universe, with widely diffused technologies, open borders and a highly integrated global financial and Internet system, very small groups of people can amass huge amounts of power to disrupt the World of Order. Individuals can become super-empowered. In many ways, 9/11 marked the first full-scale battle between a superpower and a small band of super-empowered angry men from the World of Disorder.

The job of the four pillars of the World of Order is to work together to help stabilize and lift up the World of Disorder. Unfortunately, China doesn't seem to realize that. You (like some Bushies) still have a lot of cold war reflexes. Indeed, some Chinese intellectuals, not to mention French and Russian, actually believe you all have more to fear from American power than from Osama, Kim or Saddam. That's nuts. If America has to manage the World of Disorder alone, the American people will quickly tire. And as Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert, notes, "The real threat to world stability is not too much American power. It is too little American power." Too little American power will only lead to the World of Disorder expanding.

China has to think clearly. If there is just one more 9/11, or if North Korea lobs just one missile our way, it will lead to the end of the open society in America, as we know it, and also constrict globalization. Because we will tighten our borders, triple-check every ship that comes into port and restrict civil liberties as never before, and this will slow the whole global economy.

Now the last time I checked, China had decided to base its growth on manufacturing for the global market and in particular for the U.S. market, where you now send 40 percent of your exports — 40 percent! — and where you just racked up a $100 billion trade surplus. One more 9/11 and your growth strategy will be in real trouble (unless you plan on only exporting duct tape), which means the Chinese leadership will be in real trouble.

So, you still think you don't have a dog in this fight? You still think you can be free riders on an Iraq war? You still think you can leave us to carry the burden of North Korea? Well, guess again. You need to get serious. It is quite legitimate for China to oppose war in Iraq or North Korea. But why isn't China's foreign minister going to Baghdad and Pyongyang, slamming his fist on tables and demanding that their leaders start complying with the U.N. to avoid war? I understand you don't want us to be impulsive, but why are you so passive?

One more 9/11, one bad Iraq war that ties America down alone in the Middle East and saps its strength, well, that may go over well with the cold warriors in the People's Liberation Army, but in the real world — in the world where your real threat is not American troops crossing your borders but American dollars fleeing from them — you will be out of business.

Now which part of that sentence don't you understand?
nytimes.com



To: paul_philp who wrote (74341)2/15/2003 10:11:55 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi  Respond to of 281500
 
Great post, great response.



To: paul_philp who wrote (74341)2/16/2003 12:05:30 AM
From: tekboy  Read Replies (8) | Respond to of 281500
 
There are three different arguments being raised against what I said. The first is that the Bush administration has not in fact been rude, tactless, etc., but rather nice--they went to the UN, tried to get others' support, etc. The second is that the Bushies may indeed have been rude, but legitimately so--they're just speaking the tough truths appropriate to the tough new world. And the third is that however one might characterize what they've been doing, there really isn't much of an alternative path, so my criticisms are beside the point.

Objections one and two obviously contradict each other, and can't both be correct. I think the second is a more legitimate a point than the first, because what gestures the Bush administration has made toward others have been so clearly grudging and partial that it's hard to paint them as genuine or substantial. Any seasoned foreign policy practitioner with a modicum of common sense would have known from the start that the administration couldn't go to war simply by executive fiat, and would have taken the cultivation of a domestic and international mandate as a serious first order of business. (For an example of what such an approach would look like, see the efforts of Bush 41 before the Gulf War.) Instead, Bush 43 had to be dragged kicking and screaming to Congress and to the UN, and basically told both bodies "I demand you give me large, vague authority to do something quite radical." With the UN, moreover, the administration made very clear publicly that this was something they felt was moderately desirable rather than necessary, thus gratuitously dissing the organization even as they were requesting something from it.

The administration has tried hard to link the case for war with Iraq to 9/11 and al Qaeda, moreover, even when extremely few knowledgeable people outside its ranks find such a connection strong or compelling. This repeated reliance on weak but politically charged arguments makes it seem like they are trying to pull a fast one on people, as does the fact that they have never clearly repudiated the numerous statements by many people inside and near the administration that sought (entirely unsuccessfully so far) to tie Iraq to 9/11 or the anthrax mailings.

This behavior regarding Iraq has been entirely of a piece with the administration's general handling of foreign policy toward the rest of the intertional community in the prior year and a half. From the rough handling of Kyoto, the ICC, and various other major treaties, to the agricultural subsidies and steel protections, to the cool dissing of Nato in the wake of 9/11, to the repeated rude and dismissive comments from a number of administration and related officials (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Perle, etc.), the Bushies have made it clear that they think little of the general international institutional order and architecture that they inherited--and that they believe they have the power and the will to bypass it freely as and when they see fit.

And they have couched their treatment of Iraq, finally, in a general context of preventive actions against a number of enemies, thus giving credence to the notion that what they are doing re Saddam is not a one-off operation to handle a special, extraordinary case but rather the first in a series of operations.

All this is the backdrop against which the current demonstrations and resentment should be seen. None of this means I don't support an agressive approach to Iraq or radical Islamist terror (I do), nor that I excuse the shenanigans of the French and Germans or the outrageousness or frivolousness of many lefty antiwar types (I don't). A full portrait of the situation, though, has to take all considerations into account.

As to what might have been done differently, finally, I can sum it up in two words--Blair and Pollack. Those two have been the spokesmen for bold policies against terrorists and against Iraq that nevertheless take the general feelings of the international community and the practical realities of diplomacy into account. If the Bushies could have followed their lead, making it seem like they were reluctant warriors who recognized the seriousness of what they were proposing and felt a need to justify it through honest and intelligent argumentation and bold, generous-spirited policies, I think much (although not all) of the current hullaballoo could have been avoided.

tb@sothere.com



To: paul_philp who wrote (74341)2/16/2003 12:18:14 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Agree, I think.

The SC resolved in 1441 to put the burden on Saddam to do the necessary to avoid "serious consequences." Can it really be said that French perfidy--and I'm using the word exactly as intended by the dictionary--with respect to the Resolution was caused by Bush's rudeness? I rather doubt it.

Having Ms. Manners at Bush's or Rumsefeld's elbows would not have changed things one bit. Powell's impassioned speech got to the nub of things. The French are making a mockery of a Resolution which was painstakingly negotiated in good faith by the US. They deserve to be well and properly castigated for this perfidy. The justification tht the inspections are working is, to put things undiplomatically, unadulterated horseshit.

I think perhaps tb is referring to the general style of the Bush Administration in foreign policy, which has admittedly been abrasive, particularly as regards formerly great powers who hold no-longer-justified veto power at the SC. If that is the gist, I agree.